I suppose you are aware that the WHO could only define this as a "pandemic" because they changed the definition a few years back? And that this coronavirus has been lower impact than any pandemic before the change of definition?
I remain in disagreement about your definition of "actual" evidence. Clearly some of my sources are better than others (although that doesn't necessarily mean they should be dismissed) but to me it is a very strange definition of "actual" evidence that dismisses them all as trash apart from the (part pharmaceutical industry funded) Oxford study, which it seems you did misread, or at least misread my comment on it.
You can dispute my interpretation, but I can dispute that there is no trend until there has been an increased level of player collapses for two years (or whatever your position is - it seems to change). If you could put my mind at rest about these incidents, that might be useful, but so far you have offered nothing to alter the concerns that I - and others - have had and suggest a conclusion other than what will seem an obvious one to many.
Of course the pharmaceutical industry line is that people who question them are nuts, but you do understand, don't you, that they are there to make a profit from their products. Are you really suggesting that The Independent and Oliver Wright who wrote the piece are nitters? I would have to respectfully disagree with you. I should say I have read many many things in the newspapers over the years, including various stories about pharmaceutical industry corruption. I see absolutely no reason to believe that suddenly we should take everything we hear from the pharmaceutical industry (and their proxies) at face value - have you? If so, perhaps we should hear it.
Of course the pharmaceutical industry will say that their products are great. If we see deaths in Australia remaining low in the coming weeks as a result of these "vaccines" and despite low levels of natural immunity, I might count that as some sort of actual evidence (at least if it could be shown that it wasn't just because "omicron" is a mild variant). The reason I question things is because too often I have not seen sufficient evidence for what we have been told, and indeed on occasions we have been told downright incorrect things as you will know if you have been following this.
"I hope [Osbourne] is 'vaccinated' " is kind of biased too don't you think (on the first team forum the other day)? And that was not an isolated incident, was it? What problem exactly do you have with people putting different opinions? I repeat that it is suppressing discussion that is dangerous. If someone puts forward a bad argument, it should be fairly easy to show it up. If it is not a bad argument (or only partly bad) then something may be learnt from it. If you have all this "you can't say that" nonsense, people will grow suspicious and wonder what you are trying to hide.
Don't forget that none of this would be an issue if it wasn't for the coercion and disruption we are seeing - people banned from some football clubs if they don't show health i.d., our own capacity limited so that season ticket holders and regular supporters will not have any problems attending. This is extreme, unprecedented stuff, not at all normal.
And there would not be an issue if we had not seen so many alarming incidents involving various sportsmen and spectators collapsing (and yes, I know it has happened before, but not on this scale, however much you try and gloss over it). Seven incidents in two weeks, I think it was at one point.
As I've said before, I didn't want to get involved in any more controversy after the Heathcote business, but the current nonsense has seriously impacted me both at the football and away from it. After what I have seen these past two years, I don't trust many politicians, a lot of the media and a lot of the pharmaceutical industry. And that's just the way it is. When my enjoyment of football is being impacted by all this nonsense, I reserve a right to a response, however much you may think I should be banned.